DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 10, and 17 in the reply filed on 16 April 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Applicant’s addition of claims 21-25 in the reply filed on 16 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Regarding claim 25, please substitute “wherein the coating is a thickness of between about 1 µm and about 10 µm” with -- wherein the coating [[has a thickness of between about 1 µm and about 10 µm--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
a. None of the drawings, as originally filed, are presented in three-dimensional space. Therefore, the “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction” (independent claim 1 and independent claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
b. None of the drawings, as originally filed, are presented in three-dimensional space. Therefore, the “wherein the elementary cells are arranged in a three-dimensional lattice structure” (claim 22) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1-11 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
a. Independent claim 1 has been amended to indicate “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction”.
Paragraph [0050] of the PG Pub of the instant application indicates “Another embodiment of the porous, implantable structure 300 is shown in FIG. 2C, which is a view along the X-Z plane of the structure shown in FIG. 1, with FIG. 2C illustrating a depth of two layer in the Y direction as well as three layers in the X-Z plane (including layers 326 and 328) and two partial layers in the X-Z plane. In the Y direction a distal layer 330 and a proximal layer 332 are seen. Thus, the porous, implantable structure 300 (or any porous, implantable structure of the present disclosure) can include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the X-Z plane (such as layers 326 and 328) and/or include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the Z direction (such as layers 330 and 332)”.
According to paragraph [0050], Figure 2C illustrates a view of structure 300 along the X-Z plane of the structure. And according to paragraph [0050], Figure 2C illustrates a depth of two layer in the Y direction (a distal layer 330 and a proximal layer 332), which seems to indicate the Y direction is towards (or into) the page of Figure 2C. The same paragraph states “include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the X-Z plane (such as layers 326 and 328) and/or include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the Z direction (such as layers 330 and 332)”.
However, Figure 2C seems to illustrate layers 330 and 332 as offset in the Y direction (pores 306 of proximal layer 332 are shown as offset from pores 306 of distal layer 330 in the Y direction), not the Z direction.
Therefore newly-added recitation “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This will be interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-9 and 21-25 depend from claim 1.
b. Independent claim 10 has been amended to indicate “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction”.
Paragraph [0050] of the PG Pub of the instant application indicates “Another embodiment of the porous, implantable structure 300 is shown in FIG. 2C, which is a view along the X-Z plane of the structure shown in FIG. 1, with FIG. 2C illustrating a depth of two layer in the Y direction as well as three layers in the X-Z plane (including layers 326 and 328) and two partial layers in the X-Z plane. In the Y direction a distal layer 330 and a proximal layer 332 are seen. Thus, the porous, implantable structure 300 (or any porous, implantable structure of the present disclosure) can include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the X-Z plane (such as layers 326 and 328) and/or include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the Z direction (such as layers 330 and 332)”.
According to paragraph [0050], Figure 2C illustrates a view of structure 300 along the X-Z plane of the structure. And according to paragraph [0050], Figure 2C illustrates a depth of two layer in the Y direction (a distal layer 330 and a proximal layer 332), which seems to indicate the Y direction is towards (or into) the page of Figure 2C. The same paragraph states “include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the X-Z plane (such as layers 326 and 328) and/or include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the Z direction (such as layers 330 and 332)”.
However, Figure 2C seems to illustrate layers 330 and 332 as offset in the Y direction (pores 306 of proximal layer 332 are shown as offset from pores 306 of distal layer 330 in the Y direction), not the Z direction.
Therefore newly-added recitation “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This will be interpreted as best understood. Claim 11 depends from claim 10.
c. Regarding NEW claim 23, the recitation “wherein the offset in the X-Z plane is configured to provide increased surface area for bone ingrowth” was NOT disclosed in the specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sharp et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0056178 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1 and independent claim 10, and referring to Figures 37B, 53A-53D, 54A-54E, 55A-55E, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 57B, Sharp et al. ‘178 disclose a porous (Abstract), implantable (Abstract) structure, comprising:
substantially regularly arranged elementary cells (Figures 53A-53D and 54A-54E – cells 5300; Figures 55A-55E, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 57B – cells 5500), wherein the elementary cells comprise interior spaces (clearly shown in Figures 37B, 53A-53D, 54A-54E, 55A-55E, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 57B) that form a plurality of interconnected pores (fenestrations; see, e.g., [0116]), the elementary cells comprise basic elements (Figures 53A-53D and 54A-54E – struts 5302a, 5302b; Figures 55A-55E, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 57B – struts 5502a, 5502b) arranged in layers (Figures 54D and 54E – each figure clearly shows at least a top layer and a bottom layer, wherein each layer is comprised of basic elements; Figures 56A and 56B – at least two layers 5602 layer, wherein each layer is comprised of basic elements; Figures 57A and 57B – at least two layers 5702 layer, wherein each layer is comprised of basic elements), wherein the basic elements are configured to form a non-polygonal shape (e.g., circular) of each of the plurality of interconnected pores (clearly shown in Figures 37B, 53A-53D, 54A-54E, 55A-55E, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 57B; further, see paragraph [0116]), wherein each layer is offset with respect to an adjacent layer (Figures 54D and 54E – the pores/fenestrations of the top layer are offset from the pores/fenestrations of bottom layer, and therefore a layer is at least offset in relation to the other layer in at least in one plane; Figures 56A and 56B – the top layer 5602 is clearly shown as offset from bottom layer 5602; Figures 57A and 57B – the top layer 5702 is clearly shown as offset from bottom layer 5702; further, see [0119]),
wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction (shown in Figures 54D, 54E, 57A, and 57B):
a. Figure 54E – the X-Z plane is the plane of the sheet in Fig. 54E, wherein the layers include adjacent layers (four layers in Y-direction shown in Fig. 54E) in a Y direction perpendicular to the X-Z plane, which are offset with respect to one another in a Z direction of the X-Z plane (Fig. 54E: looking through the circular open cell in the front, offset further layers are seen in the back).
b. Alternatively, see below for annotated Figure 54E of Sharp et al. ‘178, wherein the offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction is shown by adjacent layers seen in the back.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
c. See below for annotated Figure 57B of Sharp et al. ‘178, wherein the offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction is either to the left of the Z axis, or the right of the Z axis, or towards the back of the Z axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
151
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the basic elements comprise a biocompatible material (Abstract; [0021]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the basic elements are made in place through deposition and solidification ([0007]; [0021]; [0086]; [0123]; [0124]).
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the basic elements are formed by an Electron Beam Melting (EBM) process and/or a Selective Laser Melting (SLM) process ([0086]; [0124]).
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 6, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the interconnected pores comprise a pore width, wherein the pore width is between about 0.1 mm to about 1.5 mm ([0116]). Notice, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the interconnected pores comprise a pore width, wherein the pore width is between about 0.4 mm to about 1.0 mm ([0116]). Notice, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding independent claim 10, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches an endoprosthetic implant ([0002]; [0007]; [0012]; [0032]; [0121]) comprising a body made of a solid material and a bone contacting portion made of a porous, implantable structure (the “a bone contacting portion made of a porous, implantable structure” is explained above, in the rejection of independent claim 1). Notice, the “a solid material” is broadly interpreted to read on any portion of the implant not constructed as a “porous, implantable structure” (e.g., [0032] – “the porous structure forms at least a portion of a medical implant, such as an orthopedic implant, dental implant or vascular implant”).
Regarding claim 11, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the body is a component of an articulated joint ([0002]; [0007]; [0012]; [0032]; [0121]).
Regarding claim 21, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the basic elements have a substantially uniform thickness throughout the structure ([0025], [0118]).
Regarding claim 22, Figures 20, 54D, 54E, 57A, and 57B of Sharp et al. ‘178 clearly show wherein the elementary cells are arranged in a three-dimensional lattice structure.
Regarding claim 23, Sharp et al. ‘178 teaches wherein the offset in the X-Z plane is configured to provide increased surface area for bone ingrowth ([0099]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 3, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0056178 A1) in view of Bauer (US PG Pub No. 2018/0193152 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sharp et al. ‘178 discloses the invention as claimed, except for particularly disclosing wherein at least a portion of the structure is coated with a bone growth promoting material. However, this is already known in the art. For example, Bauer ‘152 teaches a porous, implantable structure (Figures 1, 2, 3A-3D, 4, 12, 13) wherein at least a portion of the structure is coated with a bone growth promoting material ([0028] – “this does not preclude the option of providing at least a portion of the elementary cells with a coating of bone growth promoting material, in particular calcium phosphate (CaP)”; further, see [0063]) in order to achieve a more rapid and thorough ingrowth of adjacent natural bone material into the bone augment ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of wherein at least a portion of the structure is coated with a bone growth promoting material, as taught by Bauer ‘152, with the invention of Sharp et al. ‘178, in order to achieve a more rapid and thorough ingrowth of adjacent natural bone material into the bone augment.
Regarding claim 24, paragraph [0032] of the PG Pub of the instant application indicates “Additionally, any portion, or the entirety of, the porous, implantable structure 100, including the basic elements 10, can be coated with any suitable coating (not shown) according to any suitable coating method”. In other words, there is no criticality for “wherein an entirety of the porous, implantable structure is coated with a coating of the bone growth promoting material”. Bauer ‘152 teaches a porous, implantable structure (Figures 1, 2, 3A-3D, 4, 12, 13) wherein at least a portion of the structure is coated with a bone growth promoting material ([0028] – “this does not preclude the option of providing at least a portion of the elementary cells with a coating of bone growth promoting material, in particular calcium phosphate (CaP)”; further, see [0063]), wherein the “at least a portion” does not preclude the structure from being entirely coated with a bone growth promoting material. Therefore, Sharp et al. ‘178 in view of Bauer ‘152 teaches wherein an entirety of the porous, implantable structure is coated with a coating of the bone growth promoting material.
Regarding claim 25, Sharp et al. ‘178 in view of Bauer ‘152 teaches wherein the coating is a thickness of between about 1 µm and about 10 µm (Bauer ‘152 – [0028] and claim 14).
12. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0056178 A1) in view of Bauer (US PG Pub No. 2018/0193152 A1).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, Sharp et al. ‘178 discloses the invention as claimed, except for particularly disclosing wherein a thickness of the basic elements is between about 0.2 mm to about 1.0 mm. However, this is already known in the art. For example, Bauer ‘152 teaches a porous, implantable structure (Figures 1, 2, 3A-3D, 4, 12, 13) wherein a thickness of the basic elements is between about 0.2 mm to about 1.0 mm ([0034] – “the legs of the tetrapods defining walls of the pores having a thickness between 0.2 and 1.0 mm, preferably between 0.4 and 0.7 mm”) or wherein a thickness of the basic elements is between about 0.4 mm to about 0.7 mm ([0034] – “the legs of the tetrapods defining walls of the pores having a thickness between 0.2 and 1.0 mm, preferably between 0.4 and 0.7 mm”), which features improve mechanical characteristics, leading to improved biocompatibility (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of wherein a thickness of the basic elements is between about 0.2 mm to about 1.0 mm, or wherein a thickness of the basic elements is between about 0.4 mm to about 0.7 mm, as taught by Bauer ‘152, with the invention of Sharp et al. ‘178, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
13. Regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sharp et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0056178 A1), Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. The Applicant argues “With respect to Figures 54D and 54E, Sharp does not disclose the claimed dual-offset layer arrangement. These figures show a single cell 5300 with fenestrations, but do not show multiple layers being offset in both an "X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction", as recited in Claims 1 and 10.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
a. The “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction” (independent claim 1 and independent claim 10) is not shown in the drawings (as originally filed). None of the drawings, as originally filed, are presented in three-dimensional space.
b. Paragraph [0050] of the PG Pub of the instant application indicates “Another embodiment of the porous, implantable structure 300 is shown in FIG. 2C, which is a view along the X-Z plane of the structure shown in FIG. 1, with FIG. 2C illustrating a depth of two layer in the Y direction as well as three layers in the X-Z plane (including layers 326 and 328) and two partial layers in the X-Z plane. In the Y direction a distal layer 330 and a proximal layer 332 are seen. Thus, the porous, implantable structure 300 (or any porous, implantable structure of the present disclosure) can include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the X-Z plane (such as layers 326 and 328) and/or include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the Z direction (such as layers 330 and 332)”.
According to paragraph [0050], Figure 2C illustrates a view of structure 300 along the X-Z plane of the structure. And according to paragraph [0050], Figure 2C illustrates a depth of two layer in the Y direction (a distal layer 330 and a proximal layer 332), which seems to indicate the Y direction is towards (or into) the page of Figure 2C. The same paragraph states “include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the X-Z plane (such as layers 326 and 328) and/or include layers that are offset with respect to adjacent layers in the Z direction (such as layers 330 and 332)”.
However, Figure 2C seems to illustrate layers 330 and 332 as offset in the Y direction (pores 306 of proximal layer 332 are shown as offset from pores 306 of distal layer 330 in the Y direction), not the Z direction.
Therefore newly-added recitation “wherein the layers are offset with respect to adjacent layers in an X-Z plane and offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
c. Figure 54E – the X-Z plane is the plane of the sheet in Fig. 54E, wherein the layers include adjacent layers (four layers in Y-direction shown in Fig. 54E) in a Y direction perpendicular to the X-Z plane, which are offset with respect to one another in a Z direction of the X-Z plane (Fig. 54E: looking through the circular open cell in the front, offset further layers are seen in the back).
d. Alternatively, see below for annotated Figure 54E of Sharp et al. ‘178, wherein the offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction is shown by adjacent layers seen in the back.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
e. See below for annotated Figure 57B of Sharp et al. ‘178, wherein the offset with respect to adjacent layers in a Z direction is either to the left of the Z axis, or the right of the Z axis, or towards the back of the Z axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
151
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
II. The Applicant argues “Additionally, Sharp's cells 5400 and 5500 are described as having fenestrations, but Sharp does not disclose that these cells comprise basic elements configured to form a non- polygonal shape of each of the plurality of interconnected pores with the specific dual-offset layer arrangement recited in the amended claims. Sharp's Figures 54D, 54E, 55A, and 55B show cells with fenestrations, but these fenestrations appear to have polygonal shapes (e.g., rectangular or square openings), not the non-polygonal shapes required by the claims in combination with the dual-offset layer arrangement” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The basic elements of Sharp et al. ‘178 are configured to form a non-polygonal shape (e.g., circular) of each of the plurality of interconnected pores (clearly shown in Figures 37B, 53A-53D, 54A-54E, 55A-55E, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 57B; further, see paragraph [0116]).
14. Regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0056178 A1) in view of Bauer (US PG Pub No. 2018/0193152 A1), Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. The Applicant argues “Bauer's disclosure of layers being "alternatingly shifted such that the tetrapods of one layer are rotated with respect to the tetrapods of the adjacent layer," See paragraph 27 of Bauer, describes rotational shifting, which is fundamentally different from the claimed offset arrangement where layers are offset in two distinct spatial orientations (X-Z plane and Z direction) simultaneously. Accordingly, even if one were to combine Sharp and Bauer, the combination would still fail to disclose the dual-offset layer arrangement recited in Claim 1” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Javier G. Blanco whose telephone number is (571)272-4747. The examiner can normally be reached on M- F (10am-7:30pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Jerrah C. Edwards, at (408) 918-7557. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAVIER G BLANCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights